Wow, not much of a difference. I thought one would get much better results for a $25,000 drum scanner.

It used to be that a $25,000 drum scanner was the only way to get good results. Sorta like how a $2,000 laser printer used to be the only way to get good printouts on your desktop. I still remember when my lab bought an early LaserJet and stood around marveling at the output.

Logged

Peter"Photographic technique should always be a means to an end and never the end itself."

Wow, not much of a difference. I thought one would get much better results for a $25,000 drum scanner.

It really depends on the film format (as already mentioned) and the dynamic range of both the film and the scanner. A flatbed scanner will not be able to go into a slightly under exposed chrome although should be able to get the full density range from a color or B&W neg. I've had scans made from drum scanners, I've done my own scans on an Imacon Flextight (not a drum scanner-it's CCD but is good with small format film) and an Epson 750 scanner for 8x10 film. As long as you profile the scanner (any of them) and the film is well exposed all 3 scanner types do decent jobs. The key is work at true optimal resolutions for the flatbed (and Imacon) and not do any interpolation. I also tend to scan flat and make corrections in Photoshop or Lightroom vs trying to make fine tuning adjustments in the scanner software.

Obviously there's an ultimate question of what your final output is gonna be. A drum scanner can scan below the resolution of the film and can produce really huge image files that can be printed really large. But if your final output is going to be smaller then the advantages of the drum scanner tend to give way. Sorry, I don't have any head to head comparisons...

There are some real limitations of flatbeds. -Whatever the designed CCD resolution, there is still a Gaussian blur effect from light scatter as it hits each side of the glass plate. The fluid immersion models handle this a bit better.-There is also the ability of the holders to keep the film flat and in the plane of focus. The larger the film size the more likely the film will sag.-Beware the infrared dust removal lamp! I noticed the film had a much bigger sag bulge after trying the "ice" dust removal. it goes in flat, it comes out with a pillow shape to the holder support.

I have the Epson 4990 and use Silverfast software that cost almost as much as the scanner. It is capable of excellent scans, it does not however have a great dynamic range. Pictures that are mostly in the middle can, however produce excellent results. This was taken with my RZ67.After the Rain by Werner Brodbeck, on Flickr]After the Rain by Werner Brodbeck, on Flickr[/url]

Scan quality depends greatly on who is doing the scanning. For my money, when I need a really high end, beautifully crafted scan, Lenny Eiger at http://www.eigerphoto.com gets the call. His work is superb.

I've used all three types of scanners: drum, flatbed and hybrid (Imacon). For chromes, a drum scanner can't be beat. It's more versatile in every aspect of digitizing an image: productivity, ppi, dmax, gradation of tones, and a lower noise floor.

One downside: film mounting. It requires oils & cleaners & wipes. You'll need a mounting station if you want to scan dozens of images at a time.

I've used all three types of scanners: drum, flatbed and hybrid (Imacon). For chromes, a drum scanner can't be beat. It's more versatile in every aspect of digitizing an image: productivity, ppi, dmax, gradation of tones, and a lower noise floor.

Same here (for the drum's ScanMate and Howtek). I completely agree with your observations!

I have both technologies. I use my Epson 750 for quick scans, when there is not much density or when resolution is not as critical. It should be noted that the flatbed is sharpest at its native CCDs' resolution whereas the drum scanner gives the same sharpness at just about every resolution setting.I have a Colorgetter Eagle and it is totally unmatched no matter what blog says the Flatbed is as good.The shadow detail, lower noise and sharpness are simply better. There is also a greenish bias that flatbeds I have tried exhibit that is not present on the Eagle.Now some of the dedicated film scanners for 35mm and the Nikon 9000 are another story.